THE SPIRITUALITY OF REGULAR CANONS
IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY:
A NEW APPROACH[1]
 
Dr. Caroline W. Bynum, Harvard University
in
Medievalia et Humanistica, New Series Nr. 4, 1973

I.   The State of the Question

Historians of medieval spirituality agree that the years between 1050 and 1215 saw a fundamental change in men's basic conceptions of the Christian life, a change perhaps as deep and as lasting as the Reformation of the sixteenth century or the spread of Christianity in the second to fourth centuries A.D.  Central to this change was a new emphasis on the obligation to love and serve one's neighbor, a new sense that Christ wished his followers not merely to worship him and avoid wrongdoing but also to care for their brothers.[2]   Scholars are fond of contrasting earlier monastic reforms, characterized by a concern for offering correct worship to god, with the activity and ideas of twelfth-century itinerant preachers, such as Vitalis of Savigny, Norbert of Xanten, Peter Valdes, or Francis of Assisi.  But historians have not agreed about exactly when or how this awareness of an obligation to care for one's fellow man emerged.  At the moment, a particular stumbling block to the understanding of this development is a lack of scholarly consensus on the place of the group known as regular canons in the history of twelfth-century spirituality.

General works on medieval spirituality have tended to assume that regular canons formed a separate movement within the religious ferment of the twelfth century, a separate movement that wedded service of others to a life of monastic withdrawal and thereby foreshadowed the friars' concern with love of neighbor.  This view sees monks and regular canons as clearly distinguishable because of the centrality granted to service in the canonical movement, and argues that the life led by regular canons was in some way a form of religious vocation that provides a transition from monk to mendicant.[3]  Recent, specialized studies on regular canons have continued to assert or assume a similar view of the place of regular canons in the history of medieval religion.[4]  But, ironically, the same specialized studies have, over the past thirty years, provided material for questioning these generalizations.  And the historian of monastic spirituality, Jean Leclerq, has recently suggested that in the area of conceptions of the cloistered life there is no difference between twelfth-century monks and regular canons, no distinctive canonical spirituality.[5]  Although most historians continue to feel that monks and regular canons differed in basic ways, it has become more and more difficult to adduce evidence of widespread and consistent contrasts between the two groups.  Recent research does not support the argument that twelfth-century canons and monks differed generally in actual practices, nor has current scholarship established that monks and regular canons diverged widely in the prerogatives they claimed or in the conceptions of the spiritual life revealed in the non-controversial writing of their orders.

Although historians have long known that the second half of the eleventh century saw a general effort to reform existing groups of secular clergy by enforcing on them a life in common and complete renunciation of private property, the research of Dereine has gradually revealed the great diversity of early canonical foundations, some of which were, in their first years, as austere and as isolated as the early Citeaux.[6]  No one would deny that some of the eleventh-century canonical houses in Italy differed from eleventh-century monastic movements in emphasizing the role of every brother as priest.  But given the great diversity of the actual life practiced in eleventh and early twelfth century canonical foundations, it is now questionable whether all houses of clerics who renounced private property should be grouped together by historians and distinguished from monastic houses.  Indeed, the evidence presented by Dereine and others suggests that an approach that groups together the early Praemonstratensians and Cistercians, on the one hand, and, on the other, the Pataria of Milan and the canons for whom the compilation found in MS Ottoboni Lat. 175 was composed[7]  be far more historically valid.   Even for the period beginning in the second decade of the twelfth century, when clerics living a full common life came increasingly to be characterized by adoptions of the Rule of St. Augustine, historians have found it difficult to identify "canonical characteristics."  By the twelfth century, the number of monks in holy orders had increased to the point where some monastic houses had many priests and many brothers in orders.[8]  The major historians of the canonical movement agree that pastoral work -- that is, service of parish churches and preaching to those outside the cloister -- was not an essential element in all canonical life,[9] whereas it was not uncommon in the same period for monks to exercise the cura animarum, including preaching.[10]  Thus, despite repeated repeated assertions by scholars that regular canons combined monastic practice with a new orientation toward the care of souls, no evidence has at yet been presented to demonstrate that the actual life lived in most canonical houses in the twelfth century differed generally from the life in most monastic cloisters.[11]

If we turn from the realm of practice to the realm of ideas, we find that, in the later eleventh and twelfth centuries, regular canons and monks engaged in various controversies over the nature and relative superiority of their respective movements, controversies that have sometimes been cited by historians as evidence of distinctive monastic and canonical spiritualities.  The existence of such polemical writings certainly indicates that some canons and some monks felt that a distinction existed between their respective forms of the religious life.  It also indicates that certain polemical writers desired to underline that difference.  A careful consideration of the treatises themselves reveals, however, that in some cases the two groups were claiming the same prerogatives -- both the right to the cura animarum and a state of spiritual superiority -- and this fact suggests that the controversy may tell historians more about new spiritual ideals that touched both monastic and canonical traditions in the twelfth century than about differences between canons and monks.[12]  We cannot assume that polemical claims reflect actual practice, nor can we assume that a few polemical treatises represent the opinion of canons in general.  Moreover, statements made in the heat of argument are not the best guide to men's ideas about themselves.  Polemical defenses of the right to preach do not necessarily reflect a conception shared by canons living together in the cloister that an obligation for one's brother is an integral aspect of the religious vocation.

Although neither polemical claims nor actual practice reveal general and widespread differences between monks and regular canons, historians continue to claim that canons developed a new self-conception, a "new orientation,"[13] that "although all the elements of the apostolic live . . . are found in the monastic order, we must assert that the emphasis is not the same [as in the canonical order]."[14]  Only two specific pieces of evidence for a distinctive canonical orientation have, however, been cited.[15]   The first is the fact, noticed by several historians, that the Premonstratensian anselm of Havelberg, changing the traditional exegesis of the story of Mary and Martha, clearly foreshadows the thirteenth-century notion of the "mixed life" of service and contemplation as higher than than the life of contemplation alone.[16]  The second and related piece of evidence, which has been pointed out most clearly perhaps by Chatillon, is a new emphasis on preaching found in some canonical writings, an emphasis that frequently exists alongside traditional interpretations of the "active and contemplative lives."[17]

But Anselm of Havelbert's new exegesis of the story of Mary and Martha does not seem to have been common among regular canons, or even among Premonstratensians;[18]  and efforts to increase the importance of the "active life" are not unknown in monastic writinigs of the same period.[19]  Anselm's exegesis differs markedly from interpretations of the passage (and conceptions of religious life) from the early Middle Ages.  It is not clear, however, that his concern is characteristically "canonical."  Moreover, Chatillon's suggestion that a new concern with preaching is evidence of a new canonical orientation has been documented only by reference to a single sermon of Richard of St. Victor and a few passages from Philip of Harvengt.   In general, as Leclercq has shown, monastic and canonical treatises agree in stressing the soul's obligation to worship and love its Creator as the central aspect of the life of the cloister.[20]  On the basis of the evidence presented by recent historians, there is then little reason to argue that twelfth-century monks and regular canons differed in their conceptions of the Christian life.

Current scholarship has adduced increasing amounts of evidence on the actual practices of monks and regular canons, has analyzed monastic and canonical polemic with some care, and has glanced, with less care, at non-polemical writings.  None of this evidence, as currently presented and analyzed, proves that there was a general difference between twelfth-century monks and regular canons either in practice or in ideas.  And yet, the efforts of canonical authors to defend and define their order in polemic and the few texts cited by Petit and Chatillon do suggest that when a twelfth-century man joined a canonical house he saw in that house a religious ideal somewhat different from the ideals of contemporary monasticism.    No historian has shown what that ideal was, and it seems unlikely that further investigation of practice or polemic will reveal a clear distinction between monks and canons.  But a survey of recent scholarship leaves us with a nagging suspicion that, in the area of ideas and self-conceptions, the case is not closed.  The non-polemical writings of the canons have not been carefully studied.  Present arguments about self-conception tend to be based on single texts, single themes, or single authors.  More work is clearly needed.  If we are to conclude with Leclercq that monastic and canonical attitudes are the same, we must show that, in an extensive study of non-polemical literature, they agree on all aspects of the spiritual life.  If we maintain with Petit that they are different, we must be able to show that, in works of similar form and purpose, virtually all canonical authors use language or voice concerns that virtually all monastic orders ignore. 

In my effort to answer the question of the difference or similarity of monastic and canonical ideas, I have thus chosen for study the fairly large group of what we might call "works of practical spiritual advice" -- that is, works about the soul's spiritual and moral progress within the cloistered life.  Such works include treatises on the formation of novices, commentaries on the Benedictine and Augustinian Rules, and certain other works that are clearly parallel to these two genre in form and intention.[21]  These works reveal the assumptions of the cloistered about the purpose of their lives much more clearly than abstract treatises of mystical or Biblical theology, works of polemic, or the practical details of custumals.  Because each author writes for members of his own order, we need not worry that his unconscious or semi-conscious attitudes toward the Christian life reflect his readers' vocation and status rather than his own.  Because the treatises all have the same ostensible subject (to explain the cloistered life to those engaged in its practice), we need not worry that the assumptions of the authros differ because of different purposes in writing.   Characteristics that appear in almost all canonical treatises and almost no monastic ones can therefore be related to the self-conception of the canonical authors qua canons.

II.   The Canonical Concern with Edification

A. Edification Verbo et Exemplo

Commentaries on the Benedictine and Augustinian Rules and works of advice for novices have usually been studied for their information on actual monastic or canonical practices or for their theories about the soul's relationship to God.  In neither of these areas do we find consistent differences between monastic and canonical writings.  But if we look at the language, the emphasis, and the specific borrowings with which the two groups of treatises describe the obligations of ordinary cloistered brothers, a revealing contrast emerges:  canonical authors see canons as teachers and learners, whereas monastic authors see monks only as learners.  What distinguishes regular canons from monks is the canon's sense of a responsibility to edify his fellow men both by what he says and by what he does.

The concern for edification is found in virtually all twelfth-century canonical commentaries and treatises for novices (with the possible exception of the De questionibus of Richard of St. Victor) and in virtually no monastic treatises (with the exception of Peter of Celle's De disciplina claustrali, Arnulf of Boheries' Speculum monachorum, and Stephen of Salley's Speculum novitii).[22]  The majority of twelfth-century canonical treatises express this concern in language that links the moral education offered by word to that offered by example and emphasizes both.  In several canonical treatises the concern is expressed in descriptions of canons as teachers verbo et exemplo: the compilation in MS Ottoboni Lat 175,[23] the Regula clericorum of Peter of Porto,[24] the De institutione novitiorum of Hugh of St. Victor,[25] Odo of St. Victor's letters on the canonical life,[26] and Philip of Harvengt's De institutione clericorum[27] all use some form of the phrase docere (or instruere, etc.) verbo et exemplo (or vita et doctrina, etc.).  In addition, a concern with the effects of canonical action and words and a general tendancy to link the exhortation to effective speech and to edifying behavior appears in the anonymous Expositio in regulam beati Augustini, which has been attributed to Hugh of St. Victor and Letbert of St. Rufus;[28] in the Vienna commentary;[29] and in Adam of Dryburgh's Liber de ordine, habitu et professione canonicorum ordinis praemonstratensis.[30]  Even in the Bridlington Dialogue and to a slight extent in Richard of St. Victor's De questionibus we find, if not the phrase docere verbo et exemplo or a linking of word and deed, at least treatments of conduct and speech that reveal an awareness of the obligation to edify.[31]

In a few canonical treatises, the concern for edification is closely and explicitly linked to a conception of the canon as preacher, either to those outside or to those within the cloister.  When the prologue of the anonymous compilation found in MS Ottoboni Lat. 175 refers to the task of canons, it is clearly describing preaching:

Since the order of canons seems to have been established especially for this . . . -- that is, to found the life of men in the catholic faith, to instruct according to the laws and morals of the Fathers, to correct, comfort and rebuke disciples by the words of holy doctrine, [and] to establish and nourish [them] for the purpose of guarding it -- it is right that they should be moved by fear, broadened by hope, inflamed by charity, adorned with knowledge, outstanding in the light of the faith and in purity of life.  And it is fitting that they have in themselves what they preach to others, lest they displease God or become reprobate to men.[32]

Philip of Harvengt's descriptions of clerics, which are directed toward and primarily about regular canons, use the phrase docere verbo et exemplo (or the idea behind it) repeatedly in referring to an obligation to preach[33] Moreover, it is true that canonical commentaries are more likely than monastic ones to include discussions of preaching.[34]  But the crucial distinction in focus between monastic and canonical works does not lie in the fact that canons claim for canons the right to preach.  Indeed, Rupert of Deutz's monastic commentary claims the right for monks,[35] the commentary in MS Vienna 2207 claims the right for both monks and canons,[36] and Joachim of Flora in his commentary on the Benedictine Rule claims the prerogative for Cistercians.[37]  Nor does the crucial difference between monastic and canonical authors lie in the fact that canons discuss preaching more frequently than monks; for many canonical commentaries and treatises do not discuss preaching.  Rather the basic distinction is that canons advise canons about the religious life as if an obligation to educate by word and example is a crucial component.  More important than the Vienna commentary's reference to preaching is the fact that it refers to canons as responsible for the effect of their words and behavior on others.  More important than the fact that Rupert of Deutz and Philip of Harvengt both claim for their constituencies the right to preach is the fact that the monk Rupert generally ignores the educational effects of words and actions, whereas the canon Philip sees the words and deeds of ordinary cloistered brothers as educational.

________________

B.   Canonical and Monastic Views of Conduct

Behind the explicit exhortations to educate verbo et exemplo found in many canonical commentaries lies the assumption that an individual living the cloistered life is responsible in whatever he says or does not only for the state of his own soul but also for the progress of his neighbor.  This assumption is frequently reflected in canonical discussions of behavior and in canonical discussions of speech or silence even where these discussions are not linked to each other and where words such as docere or instruere are not used.   If we compare passages from canonical works that deal with behavior with similar passages from monastic works, we see clearly the difference in focus of the two groups.

When canonical authors treat conduct, they tend to emphasize its impact on the reader's fellows and to urge him to take care that the impact be a useful and wise one.  Monastic authors, however, although they are sometimes aware of reciprocal relationships within the cloister, tend to see these relationships as affecting the reader and to see the reader's behavior as displayed before God.  Occasionally they warn their readers to avoid causing scandal, but almost never do they urge them to bring others to good by their behavior.  Thus the canon Hugh of St. Victor suggests that behavior may be even more important where it can be seen by men than where it will be seen only by God: "And, although a man ought in no place to desert his discipline, it ought however to be preserved more diligently and more solicitously there where being neglected it will cause scandal to many and being kept will cause an example of good imitation."[38]   And Philip of Harvength informs clerics among whom he includes regular canons, that " . . . vita clericorum forma sit laicorum . . . "[39]  In contrast, when the monastic author of the Canterbury Instructio discusses behavior, he focuses entirely on pastoral virtue.  In warning his reader against causing a disturbance in the dormitory, for example, he is concerned less with the novice's conduct before his brother than with his conduct before God:

Therefore we must take care that nothing be done at night that will be shameful to hear in the morning.  And if one takes care because of the brethren, what should be done because of God, whom naught can escape and to whom not even the thoughts of the heart are hidden? . . . Let all therefore within and without be done fittingly so that nothing appear which could offend the eyes of our Judge.[40]

Even Bernard of Clairvaux, whos De gradibus humilitatis stresses the importance of the cloistered community, nevertheless ignores the individual monk's responsibility for edifying his neighbor.  Bernard sees the cenobium as providing an opportunity for the individual monk to acquire discipline and to grow in love through identification with his neighbor's joys and sorrows.[41]  The monk is urged to love in order to learn.   Concern for the impression that one's words or deedss make on others is condemned as an element in conceit.[42]  Moreover, in Aelred of Rievaulx's Speculum caritatis, where Bernard's conception of the community as teacher of charity is joined to an awareness of conduct as example, we still find a focus on the monk as learner.   Although Aelred speaks of other monks as moving or shaping his reader by their example, he does not mention his reader's obligation to teach virtue or love to his fellows.[43]

The concern for appearance before God and union with him that is found in these monastic texts is not, of course, lacking in canonical writings. The new canonical focus on behavior as edification does not replace or shatter older traditions; rather it creeps in unobtrusively alongside them. Aelred’s Speculum and Hugh of St. Victor’s De Institutione Novitiorum, for example, are both studies of the "reformation" of the image of God in man.[44] To both Hugh and Aelred, the novice is a learner progressing toward God, and the novice’s fellows are aids to his learning. In both authors, behavior is often seen as revealed before God. Hugh’s emphasis on the novice as educator as well as learner, his emphasis on the novice’s behavior as revealed before men, slips quietly into his treatise without any apparent tension or disharmony. Hugh simply pauses, while discussing man’s relationship to God, to point out the effects of that relationship on man’s fellows.

Canonical authors thus combine the canonical view of conduct with a concern for progress toward God. They are not unaware that offering behavior coram hominibus and offering behavior coram Deo imply two different intentions in the person behaving.[45]  But they show little worry about the possibility of conflict between these two intentions. Indeed, because they move back and forth so naturally between edification of others through virtuous behavior and the offering of that same behavior to God as evidence of love for him, it is sometimes difficult to tell in a given passage exactly what the author’s focus is. A description of good behavior that leads to God and a description of good behavior that educates men may, of course, be descriptions of the same behavior and therefore may, on occasion, be the same description, if the question of audience is ignored. An isolated phrase about conduct from Adam of Dryburgh’s commentary on the Augustinian Rule and an isolated phrase about conduct from John of Fruttuaria’s work for monastic novices may, when compared, seem identical. But the overall impact of the canonical treatises is different from that of monastic ones. Canonical authors assume that canons are not only learners who grow toward God, but also pattern (forma) and example (exemplum) to those who encounter them. Regular canons do not point out that their interest in the educational effects of their own behavior differs from the interests of their monastic contemporaries; but the interest is different nonetheless.

________________

C. Canonical and Monastic Views of Silence and Speech

Just as canonical and monastic treatises differ in their conceptions of conduct, so the two groups of works differ generally in their treatment of words. With two or three exceptions, monastic authors do not exhort monks to teach each other by word, or even refer to monastic conversation as educational.[46]   Moreover, monastic and canonical authors also differ in their treatment of the opposite of words - silence. Whereas canonical authors see silence as preparation for fruitful discourse between men, monastic authors tend to see silence as a good in itself or as a preparation for discourse with God.

The late twelfth-century De novitiis instruendis, for example, emphasizes monastic silence as an aspect of self-discipline. The author is concerned, not with the harm that words may do to listeners, but with the soil and temptation that words may arouse for the speaker.[47]  Similarly, the anonymous author of the sermons on the Bcnedictine Rule found in MS Auxerre 50 focuses on silence as a goal and fears speech as an opportunity for sin. In his discussion of chapter vi of the Rule, the author warns monks to guard their mouths, avoid sin, and keep silence so that they may hear God; he interprets Isaiah VI. 5, "Woe is me because I have held my peace," in such a way that "holding one's peace" means "suppressing confession of faults."[48]  Even Peter of Celle, whose treatment of behavior (and very occasionally of words) is an exception to the monastic focus, is entirely monastic in his treatment of silence. There are, writes Peter, seven seals with which the book of silence is sealed, seven reasons for keeping silence: tranquility, profession, keeping the peace, quieting the movement and affection of the heart, withdrawing from secular business, scrutinizing the law of God, and contemplation. None of these reasons considers the effect of silence (or of words) on the monk's fellows.[49]  

In contrast, when canonical authors set out to treat silence, the discussion frequently evolves into a discussion of useful speech. Philip of Harvengt's De silentio begins with the statement that silence is necessary for the cloistered so that they may talk with God, but concludes by concentrating on the dangers of harmful silence and the wisdom of effective speech.[50]   And Hugh of St. Victor urges edifying speech as a cure for too much silence.[51]   It is not surprising that the Vienna commentary on the Augustinian Rule, which sees regular canons as preachers should see silence as preparation for didactic speech: ". . . they [the early canons] were silent thus in secret so that they might scatter the word of God in public; they appeared thus free from the acts of the world so that they, being careful, might rule the flock of the people committed to them."[52] It is, however, remarkable that, despite the wide diversity in actual canonical observance, those canonical authors who treat silence all imply that it is preparation for speech. Even Peter of Porto, whose rule allows room for the eremitical vocation and argues for periods of absolute silence in the cloister, betrays a concern for edifying words. Not only does Peter exhort canons to season their words with eloquence; he also states that one practices absolute silence at some periods in order to learn to abstain from lazy or useless words.[53]  Peter sees silence less as an ascetic exercise of denial of the will than as a means of assuring that whatever talk takes place between brothers will be useful.

________________

D. Canonical and Monastic Use of Sources

Monastic and canonical treatises of spiritual advice thus differ in their approaches to both behavior and words. The difference is subtle: often we feel, in reading these treatises, that it is quite unconscious. Regular canons and monks seem to be interested in slightly different things about themselves. Although ostensibly discussing the same topic -- the life of the cloister -- they shift the focus in different directions. We can see this difference in perspective in the use that certain authors make of traditional texts. When monastic authors borrow texts that describe clerics or preaching, they tend to alter or excerpt those texts so as to remove any emphasis on edifying behavior or speech. When canonical authors draw on earlier texts concerning the cloistered life they tend to add a concern for the educational responsibility of the individual brother.

The monk John of Fruttuaria, for example, borrows extensively from Ambrose's De officiis ministrorum in composing his treatise for novices. But his borrowings from Ambrose are taken, not from Ambrose's discussions of clerical functions or of clerical responsibility for the souls of others, but chiefly from chapters on the duties of the young and on modesty, which simply describe the appropriate virtues, and from Ambrose's opening discussion of silence. In almost every case where Ambrose moves from a consideration of silence to a consideration of the useful speech appropriate to clerics, John omits the latter emphasis and adds his own transitional sentences, treating silence as a goal, not as a means toward speech.[54]  We can see the same process of selection and adaptation at work in Peter the Deacon's Exhortatorium. When Peter borrows from a sermon of Hildebert of Lavardin about the priesthood, he interpolates the words et monachus after sacerdos where the text refers to individual virtue; where the text refers to service of the altar and preaching Peter does not add et monachus.[55]

Canonical authors also tend to borrow from earlier texts what they wish to find, to add to earlier texts what they find lacking, and to emphasize in earlier texts what they see as important. The author of the Ottoboni compilation, for example, goes out of his way to select patristic passages that link life and reputation to effective service of one's neighbor by preaching. In a section entitled Incipiunt capitula excerpta ex libris sanctorum de edificatione et correctione vite clericorum, we find among the chapter headings: "(11) Augustinus. Ut clerici servent bonam famam non solum coram Deo, sed etiam coram hominibus;" "(47) Gregorius. De his qui verba legis meditantur et leviter decent alios, male verba vivendo destruunt auditores;" "(201) Augurtinus. Ut servi dei studeant non solum bonam vitam, sed etiam bonam famam servare."[56]

Even more interesting than general canonical borrowing is the canonical reaction to the two major rules of the twelfth century: the Rule of St. Benedict and the canons' own Augustinian Rule. The Benedictine Rule itself is almost completely lacking in any suggestion that monks should, or could, offer moral education to one another. It sees in the cenobium primarily an opportunity for brothers to defer to, bear with, obey, and love each other in their search for individual salvation.[57]  The Rule includes no exhortations to verbal teaching by ordinary monks and contains no references to the helpful effects of the good conduct of ordinary brothers.[58]  It treats outward behavior entirely as an aspect of personal virtue. When twelfth-century monastic authors comment upon the Rule, they retain this focus. But when the canon Peter of Porto draws upon the Rule in composing his own rule for the canons of Santa Maria in Porto of Ravenna, he supplements the text with several telling additions. For example, much of Book I, chapter ii of Peter's Regula clericorum is borrowed from chapter iv of the Rule of St. Benedict. But in two separate places Peter specifically adds to Benedict's instruments of good works the obligation to bring others to virtue by word and example.[59]  It is quite natural that the early twelfth-century Regula clericorum, composed before the widespread adoption of some form of the Augustinian Rule by regular canons, draws on the most respected rule for the cloistered life available, the Rule of St. Benedict. But Peter obviously feels a need to add an emphasis that is lacking in Benedict's text, an emphasis on the cenobium as a setting within which brothers not only love and obey but also edify each other vita et doctrina.

In contrast to the Benedictine Rule, the Rule of St. Augustine itself contains a few traces of concern with edification. Ordinary brothers are not described as teaching by word and example; but the Rule stresses the responsibility of members of the community for each other, implying that brothers ought to aid their fellows by word[60] and that an individual is responsible for the effect of his behavior on the spiritual growth of his neighbors.[61]  Furthermore, Augustine's sermon CCCLV on the life of clerics, which was`in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries treated almost as part of the regula beati Augustini, contains a very important passage that implies that behavior teaches:

"And indeed I do not wish that anyone acquire from you a pretext for evil living. For we provide good things, the . . . apostle says, nor only before God but also before men (II Cor. VIII. 21; see also Rom. XII. 17). For our sake, our conscience is sufficient to us: for your sake, our reputation ought not to be soiled but it ought to have influence on you . . . Two things are conscience and reputation. Conscience [is] for you, reputation for your neighbor. He who trusting in his conscience neglects reputation is cruel . . . Before all show yourselves an example of good works (Titus II. 7).[62]

But in commenting on the Rule of St. Augustine and in advising their fellows about the spiritual life, twelfth-century canonical authors do not merely reproduce these vague suggestions of responsibility for edification. Rather, again and again they lay special emphasis on sermon CCCLV and on the sections of their rule that imply educational responsibility. Odo of St. Victor builds his advice about canonical reputation around borrowings from sermon CCCLV;[63] and the author of the Expositio uses sermon CCCLV to gloss the portion of the Rule that discusses the impact of gait and bearing.[64] In the Expositio, the Bridlington Dialogue, and even in Richard of St. Victor's De questionibus, the portion of the Rule that discusses clothing, the gaze of others, and bearing is expounded in such a way as to emphasize the canon's responsibility for his effect.[65]  Moreover, Adam of Dryburgh not only glosses this passage in a similar way;[66] he also deliberately returns to the passage several times in the course of his commentary, using it to emphasize the canon's impact on others.[67]   It is the only passage from the Rule that he quotes out of order and more than once. The quotation from II Corinthians or Romans that Augustine used in sermon CCCLV becomes a major theme in Adam's treatment of behavior;[68] and he himself frequently joins the phrase coram Deo, coram hominibus to the Rule's injunction: " . . . let nothing be done that will offend the gaze of anyone . . . "[69]  Just as Peter of Porto chooses to add to the Benedictine Rule a concern for edification, so Adam of Dryburgh chooses to find in his source a similar concern.

The monastic focus on the individual's responsibility for his own salvation appears to have come down to twelfth-century authors from the early Middle Ages.[70] Throughout the century, it proved so powerful that no monastic author broke away. Twelfth-century monastic texts differ greatly in their descriptions of this search for salvation.  Some authors see the virtue of the individual monk in completely static terms;[71] others see the monk's search for God as a dynamic process.[72]  Some monastic authors feel entirely at home with the focus on the individual.[73] Others seem to feel a tension between love of neighbor and the rise to God.  They struggle to retain a focus on individual salvation while allowing some room for man's awareness of his brother.[74]  But, regardless of these differences and regardless of some monastic uneasiness over the appeal of love of neighbor as an emotional commitment, no monastic author breaks completely out of the monastic focus to voice unambiguously the idea that a cloistered individual ought to educate his fellow man. In contrast, canonical authors of the twelfth century, although they share with monastic authors the goal of individual salvation, formulate a new understanding of their obligation toward their neighbor. An analysis of twelfth-century works of practical spiritual advice clearly reveals that canonical authors employed distinctive language, focused on new elements in the life of the cloister, and chose texts that would enhance their sense of moral responsibility.

III.   The Canonical Focus: Revival Or New Concern?

At first glance the sources on which canonical authors relied and the fact of the canons' status might appear to explain the canonical perspective, to explain why canons broke away in part from a focust to which monks continued to adhere.  Among the sources cited by twelfth-century canons, we can distinguish two groups that suggest the canonical focus:  the patristic description of the preacher, and the treatment of reputation in the Augustinian Rule and sermon CCCLV.   The first of these traditions, the cliche "teaching by word and example," was a conventional description of the preacher that went back to Gregory the Great's Pastoral Care (and before that to the Gospels) and appeared regularly in twelfth-century sermons of advice for preachers.[75]  Some twelfth-century canonical writings are clearly drawing on this tradition when they connect the phrase docere verbo et exemplo to preaching.  The second of these groups of sources, Augustine's sermon CCCLV and the section of the Augustinian Rule that treats the effects of behavior, was part of a larger body of material that was especially emphasized by reformers of the clerical life in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries.[76]  Quotations from this material are common in twelfth-century canonical writing.  These two groups of texts, one might argue, contain in germ the focus that characterizes twelfth-century canonical thought.  One might further argue that canons drew on these traditions because they were clerics by definition, whereas monks, who were not always in orders, ignored the "clerical" texts.

Although twelfth-century authors disagreed about what constituted clerical status, there is no question that canonical authors saw regular canons as clerics. Moreover, twelfth-century canons certainly saw the Augustinian Rule and Augustine's sermons on the life of clerics as "clerical" texts and as peculiarly their own. The tradition of advice to preachers undoubtedly also seemed, to some authors, to be a "clerical" tradition. Although clerical status in the twelfth century did not necessarily involve pastoral care or preaching, it is clear that some canonical (and indeed some monastic) authors saw clerical status as including the right to preach.[77]  It is therefore likely that some canonical writers felt comfortable borrowing the language of this tradition of advice to preachers exactly because they felt that canons were clerics and, as clerics, preachers. The fact that the secular cleric Stephen of Paris is the only commentator on the Benedictine Rule to emphasize the obligation to teach verbo et exemplo or to use the phrase to describe ordinary monks supports the idea that authors who thought of themselves as clerics tended, perhaps subconsciously, to feel close to traditional descriptions of the preacher in a way that authors who were monks did not.[78]  Thus it seems possible to argue that regular canons, because they considered themselves clerics, drew on certain "clerical" traditions that suggested both the idea of behavior as a support to effective verbal teaching and the idea of behavior as an agent of moral education in its own right.

This argument implies that canons merely revived, in the context of the older monastic emphasis on individual salvation, a readily available, clerical emphasis on preaching and on reputation. But such an argument is unsatisfactory as an explanation of the canonical concern with edification. The canonical perspective goes beyond anything suggested in the traditions on which regular canons drew. The phrase verbo er exemplo, vita et doctrina takes on in twelfth-century canonical authors a broader meaning than its earlier identification with preaching or with leadership. Several of the twelfth-century authors who explicitly use the phrase have in mind not preaching but rather ordinary human intercourse either inside or outside the cloister. They have transferred a sense of responsibility for edification from one role, that of preacher, to another role, that of the canon living a cloistered life (a role that might or might not include the role of preacher). The canonical concern for edification thus does not seem to be simply a union of traditional ideas of the preacher and traditional ideas of the monastic life. Some regular canons, such as Philip of Harvengt and the author of the Ottoboni compilation, borrow the phrase verbo et exemplo to describe preaching. But Peter of Porto and Hugh of St. Victor use the phrase to describe other human relationships. And Adam of Dryburgh, who does not use the phrase at all, treats words and actions as if they are agents of edification. The mere existence of a tradition for describing preaching does not explain why regular canons used that tradition to describe almost all human intercourse. Moreover, the mere existence of certain phrases and ideas in a body of material that canons used for regulating their lives and for meditation does not explain why those phrases took on an importance in canonical writing. The fact that Adam of Dryburgh quotes a passage from the Rule is explained by the fact that he is commenting on the Rule; the fact that he emphasizes certain implications of that passage, and the fact that he returns repeatedly to cite the passage as a vehicle for conveying to others the ideas he sees there, is not explained simply by the commentary form or by the existence of the Rule itself. Twelfth-century canonical authors do not merely voice again a concern present in their sources since the early Middle Ages. Rather they make the Rule's vague references to reputation into explicit statements of an obligation to edify. What in the Rule is basically a concern with avoiding the negative effects of bad reputation becomes in many canonical writers a concern with offering to others the positive effects of good reputation. The traditional monastic emphasis on individual salvation, the traditional description of the preacher, a few phrases in the Augustinian Rule and sermon CCCLV -- we cannot add these three elements together and come up with the conception of obligation that we find in twelfth-century canonical treatises. What twelfth-century canons were voicing was something new: a sense of the individual's responsibility for his fellows, both within and outside the cloister. Because of this new concern, canons turned to traditions that provided language for speaking of the concern, traditions that pointed beyond the monastic focus. Because of their clerical status, they found it easy to borrow from these particularly useful traditions. But the source of the new concern did not lie in the traditions that were borrowed or in the clerical status of the borrowers.[79] 

Like most genuinely new concerns in a conservative and traditional society, the shift in focus that we find in canonical, but not monastic, texts is subtle. Canonical authors did not call attention to this change: they spoke in a new way without any clear sense that it was something new. They felt a commitment to educate others that was no longer attached to the role of the preacher or leader, a commitment that gave a new importance to example as well as speech. But the new commitment rested easily alongside the search for individual salvation. The new focus did not replace the old. It did not have to. If speech and action of themselves communicated, then each could be offered coram hominibus as well as coram Deo. The ordinary brother in the cloister could serve his fellow man and his God by what he was, what he said, and what he did.

The basic distinction between monks and regular canons, which historians have sought in actual practices, in polemical stance, and in articulated conceptions of the spiritual life, thus seems to lie in the area of semi-conscious attitudes and assumptions. Although frequently living similar lives, regular canons and monks understood in very different ways the significance of what they did and the responsibilities entrusted to them. Once we understand correctly the nature of the difference between canonical and monastic spirituality, we realize that the traditional view of the place of canons in twelfth-century history must be revised. Throughout the century, isolated individuals, who sometimes were (or became) both monks and canons, engaged in wandering preaching, in pastoral work, and in the care of pilgrims, the sick, and the poor. There were many such individuals, but we cannot identify them, as a group, as either canons or monks. These actions were new, wherever they appeared; they were not, however, "monastic" or "canonical." The majority of canons, like the majority of monks, only rarely joined actual service of men in the world to the discipline of cloistered withdrawal. What is new and distinctive about the canons as a group is not their actions or the rights they claimed. It is simply the quality of their awareness, their sense of responsibility for the edification of their fellow men. In this awareness we find a note not heard in the older traditions to which twelfth-century monks clung. And it is in this new sense of responsibility for moral education that the writings and thought of the regular canons point to the future

NOTES:

[1]

I would like to thank Professor Giles Constable and Dr. Stephen D. White of Harvard University, who read drafts of this article and made valuable suggestions.

[2]

See, for example, Marie-Dominique Chenu, "Moines, clercs, laics: au carefour de la vie evangelique," in Chenu, La theologie au douzieme siecle (Etudes de la philosophie medievale, XLV,; Paris, 1957), pp. 2250251; and Ernest W. McDonnell, "The Vita Apostolica: Diversity or Dissent?" Church History, XXIV (1955), 15-31.

[3]

See, for example, Marie Humbert Vicaire, L'imitation des apotres: moines, chanoines, mendicants (IVe-XIIIe siecles) (Paris, 1963), pp. 62-66; and R.W. Southern, Western Society and the Church in the Middle Ages (The Pelican History of the Church, II; Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England, 1970), pp. 240-250.

[4]

C. Dereine, "Vie Commun, regle de saint Augustin, et chanoines reguliers au XIe siecle," Revue'dhi9stoire ecclesiastique, XLI (1946), 365; idem, "L'elaboration du statut canonique des chanoines reguliers specialment sous Urbain II," Rev. d'hist. eccles., XLVI (1951), 563-564; idem, "Chanoines," Dictionnaire d'histoire et de geographie ecclesiastiques, XII (Paris, 1953), cols. 401-403; J. Chatillon, "La spiritualite canoniale," Saing Chrodegang: communications presentees au colloque tenu a Metz a l'occasion du douzieme centenaire de sa mort (Metz, 1967), p. 120; Francois Petit, La Spiritualite des Premontres au XIIe et XIIIe siecles (Paris, 1947), pp. 266-267; idem, La reforme des pretres au moyen-age; pauvrete et vie commun: textes choisis . . . (Paris, 1968), pp. 18-20, 157-159.

[5]

J. Leclerq, "La spiritualite des chanoines reguliers," La vita commune del clero nei secoli XI et XII: atti della settimana di studio: Mendola, settembre 1959 (Miscellanea del centro di studi medioevali, III; Milan, 1962), I, 134.

[6]

In addition to the articles cited above in n. 4, see Charles Dereine, Les Chanoines reguliers au diocese de Liege avant saint Norbert (Academie royale de Belgique: classe des lettres . . . , Memoires in-8o, XLVILI; Brussels, 1952); idem, "Les origines de Premontre," Rev. d'hist. eccles., XLII (1947) 352-378; idem, "Les coutumiers de saint-Quentin de Beauvais et de Springiersback," Rev. d'hist. eccles., XLIII (1948), 411-442; idem, "La spiritualite 'apostolique' des premiers fondateurs d'Afflighem (1083-1100)," Rev. d'hist. eccles., LIV (1959), 41-65.

[7]

On the text found in MS Ottoboni Lat. 175, see Appendix under "Canonical treatises parallel to commentaries . . . "

[8]

Philibert Schmitz, Histoire de l'ordre de saint Benoit (Maredsous, 1942-1956), I, 264-265.

[9]

See John Compton Dickinson, The Origins of the Austin Canons and Their Introduction into England (London, 1950), especially pp. 73 and 76; Dereine, in Dict. d'hist. et de geogr. eccles., XII, cols 391-395; and idem, Liege, pp. 30-31.

[10]

U. Berliere, "L'exercise du ministere paroissal par les moines du XIIee au XVIIe siecles," Revue benedictine, XXXIX (1927), 340-364; G. Constable, "The Second Crusade as Seen by Contemporaries," "Appendix A," Traditio, IX (1953), 276-278; P. Hofmeister, "Moenchtum und Seelsorge bis zum 13, Jarhundert," Studien und Mitteilungen zur Geschichte des Benediktiner-Ordens und seiner Szeige, LXV (1955), 209-273; F. J. Schmale, "Kanonie, Seelsorge, Eigenkirche," Historisches Jahrbuch, LXXVIII (1959), 38-63; M. Peuchmaurd, "Le pretre ministere de la parole dans la theologie du XIIe siecle (canonistes, moines et chanoines)," Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale, XXIX (1962), 52-76.

[11]

In "Discussione," La vita commune, I, 136-137, Dereine and Leclerq differed briefly over whether the establishment of hospitals might be particularly "canonical."   The question has not been explored in depth.

[12]

On this controversial literature, see Dereine in Rev. dhist. eccles., XLVI, 558-564; Peuchmaurd in Rech. de theol. anc. et med., XXIX, 52-76; and Giles Constable, Monastic Tithes from Their Origins to the Twelfth Century (Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, new ser. 10; Cambridge, England, 1964), pp. 136-185 passim.

[13]

Vicaire, L'imitation, p. 62

[14]

Petit, La Spiritualite des Premontres, p. 266

[15]

In addition, P. Classen has suggested ("Discussione," La Vita comune, I, 140) that one should distinguish from "monastic theology" a "canonical theology" with a special interest in the sacraments.  But although certain interests are clearly common to a number of Victorines, and certain interests are common to a number of Premonstratensians, I see no convincing reason at the moment for identifying a "canonical" theology.

[16]

See, for example, F. Petit, "L'Ordre de Premontre de saint Norbert a Anselme de Havelberg," La vita comune, I, 476-478.

[17]

J. Chatillon, "Contemplation, action et predication d'apres un sermon inedit de Richard de saint-Victor . . .," L'homme devant Dieu: melanges offerts au Pere Henri de Lubac (Paris, 1964), II, 89-98.  Leclerq in La vita comune, I, 117-135, implies that this is true for the late eleventh century.  The texts cited in Petit, Reforme des pretres, pp. 77-109, would also suggest this, although Petit does not argue the point.

[18]

See, for example, Philip of Harvengt, De obedientia, xxxi-xxxvi, PL 203, cols. 905-921; Adam of Dryburgh, De tripartito tabernaculo, III, xiii-xv, PL 198, cols 773-780; Richard of St. Victor, De questionibus regule sancti Augustini solutis, xiv, ed. in M. L. Colker, "Richard of St. Victor and the Anonymous of Bridlington," Traditio, XVIII (1962), 216; and Richard of St. Victor, Liber exceptionum, Part II, Book XIV, chapter v, ed J. Chatillon (Paris, 1958), pp. 503-504.

[19]

See, for example, Aelred of Rievaulx. Sermon XVII, PL 195, cole. 303-309.

[20]

Leclercq in La Vita comune, 1, 117-135.

[21]

The discussion of canonical and monastic spirituality that occupies the remainder of this anicle is based on a close analysis of the treatises listed in the Appendix. It is not possible in this article to give a full discussion of problems of dating, authenticity, etc., that pertain to individual treatises, nor is it possible to provide a lengthy justification for the decision to include certain texts as parallel. In my doctoral thesis, "Docere et Exemplo: An Aspect of Twelfth Century Spirituality" (Harvard University, unpub. diss., 1969), which I am preparing for publication, I have analyzed these treatises in more detail and given fuller documentation for the argument summarized here.

[22]

Peter of Cellc's De disciplina contains several suggestions that the monk should be concerned about the effect of his behavior or words (De disc. iii, iv and viii, PL 202, cols. 1104D-1107B and 1114A); the most important of these is De disc. iii-iv, PL 202, cols. 1104D-1106A. But Peter's occasional lapses from the monastic focus may be partly explained by the fact that he addresses canons as well as monks. Amulf of Boheries's Speculum contains one phrase that clearly departs from the monastic focus (Speculum. PL 184, col. 1176A). In Stephen of Salley's Speculum novitii, the basic perspective is definitely monastic: the author is concerned with virtue as an aspect of the soul's appearance before God; the only relationship discussed at any length is that between the soul and Christ. There are, however, a few references to avoiding the unedifying effects of behavior or enhancing the edifying effects: Spec. nov., i and xviii, ed. Mikkers, Coll. ord. Cist. Ref. VIII, 45-46 and 61.

[23]

Studi Gregoriani. VI, 218-219.

[24]

Regula Clericorum. I, ii and xxvii; PL 163, cols. 708C-D, 709C, and 718B.

[25]

Hugh, De Institutione iv, PL 176, col. 928A.

[26]

Odo, Letter II, PL 196, col. 1404; Letter IV, PL 196, cola. 1406-1408; Letter V, PL 196, cols. 1409-1411.

[27]

See note [33] below.

[28]

Expositio. vi, vii, and ix, PL 176, cols. 897C-898C, 901D, 902A-C, 909, 910D, and 912B.

[29]

Preface, MS Vienna 2207, fols. IIv and 13 bisv-14r.

[30]

Adam of Dryburgh, De ordine, sermon II and sermon VI, PL 198, cols. 457-460 and 489-494.

[31]

Bridl. Dial., pp. 39, 112, 130, 141, 173-174, and 187. Richard of St. Victor, De questionibus i, ed. Colkcr, Traditio.XVIII, 203-204; De ques., xx, Traditio, XVIII, 223. Whatever emphasis on verbal or non-verbal teaching there is in Richard's commentary is very faint. It should be noted, however, that Richard's treatise is not really a work of moral and spiritual advice that ranges over the entire Augustinian Rule, but rather a discussion of twenty questions of a practical nature concerning the daily life of regular canons.

[32]

Studi Gregoriani. VI, 181-182.

[33]

For example, Philip of Harvengt, De scientia, xxiii, xxvii and xxix. PL 203, cols. 695B-C, 699C-700C, and 702A-D: De justitia xlii, PL 203, col. 719A-B; De silentio, lxxvi and lxxxviii, PL 203, cols. 1102C and 1123B-1124A.

[34]

The compilation in MS Ottoboni Lat. 175 (Studi Gregoriani, VI, 181-182 and 218), the commentary in MS Vienna 2207 (Preface, MS Vicnna 2207, fol. 13 bisv 14r), the Bridlington commentary (Bridl. Dial. pp. 99 and 134-135). Philip of Harvengt's De institutione (De scientia, PL 203, cols. 693-708), and Richard of St. Victor's sermon on Gregory the Great (see excerpts in Chatillon, "Contemplation, action et predication . . . " L'homme devant Dieu, II, 89-98) all devote attention to preaching. The only Benedictine commentaries to consider preaching are the commentary of Stephen of Paris, which was written not by a monk but by a secular cleric (see n. [78] below), and Peter the Deacon's odd and derivative compilation, the Exhortatorium (Bibl. Cas., V, Flor., 66b-67b).

[35]

Rupert, In regulam, PL 170, cols. 515-517, 532, 534.

[36]

Preface, MS Vienna 2207, fol. 14r.

[37]

Joachim, Tractatus i, xii, xiii-xv, and xxxvii. ed. Baraut Anal. sacra tarr.. XXIV, 42, 61, 63-70, and 105.

[38]

De institutione, iii, PL 176, col. 927C.

[39]

Sec Philip, De dignitate ii, PL 203, cols. 669D-670B.

[40]

Instructio, tr. by Knowles, Constitutions of Lanfranc, p. 143r, text p. 143v.

[41]

Bernard, De gradibus, iii, Opera, ed. Lcclcrcq, III, 20-21.

[42]

Bernard, De gradibus, xiv, Opera. ed. Leclercq, III, 48-49.

[43]

Aelred, Speculum, II, xxiv, PL 195, col. 573B; and III, iv-vi, xii, and xxiv, PL 195, cols. 579-583. 588B-D, and 597A-B.

[44]

See Aelred, Speculum, I, iii-v, PL 195, cols. 507-510; and Hugh, Dr institutione, prologue, PL 176, cols. 925-926.

[45]

See, for example, Bridl. Dial., pp. 135-136.

[46]

See above n. 22.The only exception to the monastic approach to silence is Peter the Deacon, who borrows from Smaragdus (Diadema monachorum xxxviii, PL 102, cols. 633C-634A) a passage which states that monks must sometimes speak for the sake of the spiritual health of others and omits the second portion of the same chapter which concludes that keeping silence is safest: see Peter, Expositio. Bibl. Cas., V, Flor., 129.

[47]

De novitiis instruendis, MS Douai 827, fols. 77r-78r.

[48]

MS Auxerre 50, fols. 20v.b-22r.a.   See especially fols. 21v.b-22r.a.

[49]

Peter of Celle, De disciplina, xviii, PL 202, cols. 1124B-1125D.  See n. [22] above.

[50]

Cf. Philip, De silentio, i, PL 203, cols. 945C-946A, with De silentio, xiv, PL 203, cols. 969A-970C, and De silentio, xxii. PL 203, col. 981D.

[51]

Hugh, De institutione, xiv, PL 176, col. 945B-D.

[52]

Preface, MS Vienna 2207, fols. 13 bisv-14r.

[53]

Regula Clericorum, I, xxxii-xxxvi. PL 163, cols. 720-722. See also Reg. cler., I, ii, xxii and xxiii, PL 163, cols. 709B-C, 716, and 717A.

[54]

For example, chapter ii of the De vitae ordine (PL 184, cols. 562D-565C) is borrowed from Ambrose's De officiis ministrorum, PL 16, cols. 43-49, with omissions; chapter iii, PL 184, cols. 567D-568A, is from the De officiis, PL 16, col. 49; chapter iii. PL 184. cols. 568A-B. is from the De officiis, PL 16, col. 54; chapter iv, PL 184, the last sentence in col. 568 and the next few sentences. could be derived either from Ambrose's Exhortatio virginitatis, I, xiii, paragraph 87, PL 16, cols 361D-362A, or from the De officiis, PL 16, col. 43 and col. 26B. Much of chapter iv, paragraph 12, PL 184. col. 569B is from the De officiis, PL 16, col. 33A-D; the first few sentences in chapter iv. paragraph 13, are from the De officiis, PL 16. col. 28A; other sentences in chapter iv, paragraph 13, are from the De officiis, PL 16, col. 27A.

[55]

Peter's text in Bibl. Cas. V, Flor., 68a-71a. is borrowed from a sermon of HildcberS which is numbered 97 in the Migne ed. (PL 171, cols. 786-790), and 9 in Andre Wilmart, "Les sermons d'Hildebert" Revue Benedictine, XLVII (1935), 33. See P. Meyvaert "The Exegetical Treatise of Peter the Deacon and Eriugena's Latin Rendering of the Ad Thalassium of Maximus the Confessor." Sacris erudiri: Jaarboek voor Godsdienstwetenschappen, XIV (1963), 145.

[56]

Studi Gregoriani, VI. 190, 191, and 197.

[57]

See especially Benedict of Nunia. Regula (hereinafter RB). lxxii, ed. R. Hanslik (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasicorum latinorum. LXXV: Vienna. 1960). 162-163: see also RB, lxxi, ed. Hanslik, 161-162.

[58]

The only references to any kind of verbal aid are the vague reference to the consoling of the sorrowful in the instruments of goal works (RB, iv, ed. Hanslik. 30, para. 19) and the references to encouraging each other upon rising in chapter xxii (RB, ed. Hanslik. 78. para. 8). There is a reference to evil conduct as a scandal in RB, xxxi, ed. Hanlik, 89, para. 16. My interpretation of the Rule comes much closer to that of Adalbert de Vogüé, La comunauté et l'abbé dans la règle de saint Benoît, (Paris, 1960) than to the classic interpretation of Cuthbert Butler, Benedictine Monachism: Studies in Benedictine Life and Rule, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, England, 1924).

[59]

Reg. cler., I, ii, PL 163. cols. 708C-D and 709B-C.

[60]

Praeceptum, ed. [Melchoir] Luc Vcrheijen, La regle de saint Augustin, 2 vols. (Paris, 1967), I, 426-428, lines 106-133, especially La regle, I, 426-427, lines 115-119.

[61]

Praeceptum, ed. Verheijen, La regle, I, 423, lines 78-83.

[62]

Augustine, Sermon CCCLV, in Sermones selecti duodeviginti, ed. C. Lambot (Stromata patristica et mediaevalia, I; Utrecht. 1950), p. 124.

[63]

Odo quotes from Augustinc's sermon CCCLV in Letter V. PL 196, col. 1411; all of Letter V (ibid.. cols., 1409-1411) is strikingly similar to sermon CCCLV.

[64]

Expositio, vi, PL 176, cols. 897C-898C.

[65]

Ibid. Also Bridl. Dial., p. 130, and Richard of St. Victor. De questionibus, xiii, ed. Colker,  Traditio. XVIII. 214-215.

[66]

Adam of Dryburgh. De ordine, sermon II, PL 198, cols. 457C-460D.

[67]

Ibid, col. 459A; sermon VI. PL 198. col. 489C and 492B; sermon X, PL 198, col. 534A. The latter quotation occurs in the normal course of commenting on the Rule.  Sermon XIV, PL 198, col. 605A-B, is strongly reminiscent of the samc phrases.

[68]

The words from Paul are quoted in sermon II, PL 198, col. 459A; sermon III, PL 198, col. 463C; sermon IV. PL 198, col. 489B; sermon X, PL 198. col. 534B. The contrast coram Deo, coram hominibus is echoed throughout the sermons.  See. for example, sermon III, PL 198, col. 461D; and sermon XIV, PL 198, col. 605B.

[69]

See sermon X, PL 198, col. 534; and sermon II, PL 198, cols. 457C-460D.

[70]

Jean Leclercq, Initiation aux auteurs monastiques du moyen âge: l'amour des lettres et le désir de Dieu, 2nd ed. (Paris. 1963).

[71]

For example, the commentary on the Rule from Pontigny, MS Auxcrre 50, fols. 1r-125r.

[72]

Bernard. De gradibus, Opera, ed. Leclercq, 111. 12-59.

[73]

For example, John of Fruttuaria. Dr vitae ordine, PL 194, cols. 559-584; and Peter the Deacon, Expositio. Bibl. Cas. V, Flor., 82-165.

[74]

Particularly Aelred, Speculum PL 195, cols. 505-620.

[75]

J. Leclercq. "Le magistére du prédicateur au Xllle siècle," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, XV (1946), 105.

[76]

Verheijen. La régle, II, 215; Dereine in Rev. d'hist. eccles., XLI, 385-401; and idem Liége, pp. 23-27.

[77]

See n. [12] above.

[78]

Stephen reveals a non-monastic focus in two ways. First, he wanders away from his ostensible subject to explicit discussions of clerics and preaching (MS Clm. 3029. fols. [63v.b-64r.a], and [116r.a-118'.vb]).  Second, he suggests that monks have a responsibility to teach by word and example (MS Clm. 3029. fols. [46r.a-b], [80v.a-81v.b], [82v.a-83v.a] and [106v.a-107r.a]). 

[79]

This is not, of course, to argue that regular canons invented the new concern for neighbor that lies behind their concern for edification.   As other histonans have pointed out, such a concern seems to underlie many of the characteristics of eleventh and twelfth-century religous movements. Sec n. [2] above.  

APPENDIX

Unless otherwise noted, the treatises are from the twelfth century and are listed in chronological order within each category (see n. [21] above).

Commentaries on the Benedictine Rule:

Commentaries on the Augustinian Rule:

Monastic treatises for novices:

Canonical treatises for novices:

Monastic works parallel to commentaries and treatises for novices:

Canonical treatises parallel to commentaries and treatises for novices:

<<end>>